NORRISTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA
| Terance Healy | : |
| (Appellant/Plaintiff) | :#2013-29976 |
| : | |
| v. | : |
| : | |
| David R. Miller | : |
| Jennifer K. Miller | : |
| (Appellee/Defendants) | : |
| : |
1. The Appellant responds timely to the Order of March 6, 2014 issued and signed by the Honorable
Gail Weilheimer to file of record a Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal pursuant to
Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b).
– the Order dated March 6, 2014,
– entered indicating a filing date of March 7, 2014,
– “docketed and sent on 03/10/2014 pursuant to Pa. R. C. P. 236”
2. The Appellant timely files this document with the Montgomery County Prothonotary. Time
Stamped copies to be delivered to Judge Gail Weilheimer on March 27, 2014, with time stamped
courtesy copies to Philip A. Magen and Scott Goldstein of Zarwin, Baum, Devito, Kaplan, Schaer,
Toddy, PC representing the Appellee.
FINAL ORDER
3. The Order dated 4th of March 2014 represents a Final Order issued by Judge Gail Weilheimer at the
end of a hearing on the same day.
HISTORY OF THE CASE
4. On October 3, 2013, a COMPLAINT – ACTION IN EJECTMENT was filed by Plaintiff.
5. On October 22, 2013, Defendants filed their Preliminary Objections. In their Preliminary
Objections, Defendants acknowledged a true and correct deed recorded and filed on December 28,
1995 which indicates the Plaintiff as the legal owner.
6. On November 12, 2013, Plaintiff responded to the Preliminary Objections.
7. The Defendants presented a deed recorded on October 6, 2011 as the basis for their ownership of the property. That deed recorded on October 6, 2011 is not properly recorded and is incomplete. The
improperly filed document has been confirmed by the County Recorder of Deeds, Nancy Becker.
8. To substantiate their improperly recorded deed and claim of ownership, Defendant's presented a
defective and void Divorce Decree and Order dated May 9, 2011. This document had not been
recorded along with the deed as it was known to be defective and void.
9. On November 12, 2013, Plaintiff responded to the Preliminary Objections in a document which
challenged the failure of the Defendants to produce a valid deed or title to the property. The 54
paragraph document detailed the fraudulent conveyance of the property which had occurred without the
Plaintiff's knowledge or consent, and where all parties involved in the transaction (Title Company, Real Estate Agents, Underwriters, Seller) had indicated their knowledge of the impropriety of the
transaction.
10. On November 27, 2013, Plaintiff filed a MOTION TO STRIKE A DEFECTIVE AND VOID
ORDER. The 24 paragraph motion detailed the reasons that the order was defective and void, clearly
demonstrating the defect on the court record/docket, citing law, case law and precedents upheld by the higher courts. The court had lacked jurisdiction to issue the order. The requirements for validity were not met.
12. On December 6, 2013, Defendants filed their RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION
TO STRIKE A DEFECTIVE AND VOID ORDER. The Defendants neglected to provide any evidence
of validity or proper jurisdiction of the court to issue the [defective and void] order.
13. On February 24, 2014, the Court scheduled Argument “on the Defendant's Preliminary Objections
to Plaintiff's Complaint” for Tuesday March 4, 2014.
14. Plaintiff filed a pre-hearing statement with exhibits prior to the hearing. A copy was provided to the Court and the Defendants' counsel when the Plaintiff arrived prior to the proceeding.
PERCIEVED BIAS
15. The Court required the Plaintiff to be sworn in “in an abundance of caution” without explanation.
The phrase demonstrates a predetermination and bias regarding the Plaintiff's testimony and
documentation.
16. The Defendants were unavailable to testify to their association with Judge Gail Weilheimer and
their efforts in her judicial campaign.
17. The Court neglected to concurrently address the Plaintiff's MOTION TO STRIKE A DEFECTIVE
AND VOID ORDER filed on November 27, 2013, and included in the Plaintiff's PRE-HEARING
STATEMENT AND EXHIBITS FOR MARCH 4, 2014.
CHALLENGE TO JURISDICTION OF THE ORDER OF MAY 9, 2011
18. Plaintiff challenged the jurisdiction of the Court to issue the Order of May 9, 2011. The Court
neglected to prove proper jurisdiction.
19. Plaintiff presented the defects and failure to follow law and procedure which causes the order of
May 9, 2011 to be defective and void.
20. The Defendant failed to address the Plaintiff's challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court to issue the order of May 9, 2011.
21. The Defendant failed to address the fatal defect in the Order of May 9, 2011, or to provide any
basis in law for the Courts' jurisdiction to issue that order.
22. The Defendant relies on the validity of the Order of May 9, 2011, yet fails to present any evidence or testimony or information establishing validity of the order as a divorce decree or equitable distribution order..
VOID JUDGMENT
23. The Court fails to recognize that the defective and void of order of May 9, 2011 may be challenged at any time in any proceeding as long as it it properly before the court.
24. The Court fails to recognize and address that the defective and void order can be
attacked/challenged in any proceeding where the validity of the judgment comes into issue.
25. The Court fails to recognize and address that when presented with a void order relief from the void order is not discretionary, but mandatory.
26. The Court fails to recognize that a void judgment grounds no rights, forms no defense to actions
taken thereunder and is vulnerable to any manner of collateral attack and is limited by no statue of
limitations.
27. The Court neglects to notice that unless and until a valid decree in divorce has been entered, then there can be no equitable distribution of marital property.
IRRELEVANCY OF STAYS AND POWER OF ATTORNEY
28. The Court guided the Defendants counsel to issues concerning stays and power of attorney,
ignoring that without a valid divorce decree, the order for equitable distribution is a nullity.
29. The Court directly queried the Plaintiff inquiring if any stays were requested, and then changing
the question to if any stays were issued, demanding a 'yes or no answer and focusing on the invalid
order in equitable distribution which is a nullity and void because of the defects in the divorce decree.
THE QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT
30. The Court clearly indicates understanding the question before the court relates to the lack of
jurisdiction to issue the order (divorce decree) of May 9, 2011.
31. The Court is aware of the Plaintiffs deed indicating ownership of the property.
32. The Court is aware that the Defendant's only claim to ownership is based on a defective and void
order, a nullity.
33. The Court neglects the evidence, ignores sworn testimony, and disregards 'all of the documents'
including the court records, and without any basis in law improperly dismisses the Plaintiff's complaint indicating his lack of ownership does not permit him to bring an action in ejectment.
34. The Court fails to make any statement on the record that proves the validity of the Order of May 9, 2011 as required by law.
35. The Court then improperly indicated that the MOTION TO STRIKE A VOID AND DEFECTIVE
ORDER is moot because the matter has been dismissed, failing to recognize that the providing relief
from void judgments is not a discretionary matter, but is mandatory.
36. When judges act when they do not have jurisdiction to act, or they enforce a void order (an order
issued by a judge without jurisdiction), they become trespassers of the law, and are engaged in treason.
Respectfully submitted,
Terance Healy
PDF Version
April 23, 2014 - Still waiting on the trial court's opinion to explain the ruling. Of Course knowing the above information is factual, there is nothing that the trial court can write to make all of the injustice go away.
THE TEAM OF LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL AND AGENCIES WHO REFUSED TO GET INVOLVED WILL ALSO BE EXPOSED FOR THEIR FAILURE TO ACT..
The District Attorney refused to get involved.
The FBI agent was told by his supervisor to not get involved.
The Montgomery County Detective was told to not get involved.
The Attorney General refused to get involved.
The Department of Justice refused to get involved.
The PA State Police refused to get involved.
Pennsylvania Senators and Representatives refused to get involved.
United States Senators and Congressmen refused to get involved.
Whatever way this action goes, there remains THE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE OF RULE 1.6. RULE 1.6 caused and mandated the complete failure of justice, destroyed the integrity of the judiciary, and exposed the sedition and conspiracy involving every lawyer and judge in the USA.
This is only one aspect of what it has done as it annihilated my life for the last 8 years.
JUSTICE IS COMING.
No comments:
Post a Comment